20-Year Outcomes of High Tibial Osteotomy: Determinants of Survival and Functional Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a successful joint-preserving procedure for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis. Long-term survivorship of HTO ranges from 40% to 85%. There are consistent factors that predict failure. PURPOSE: To determine the 20-year survival of HTO and identify predictors of failure. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients with medial bone-on-bone arthritis were prospectively studied to provide long-term patient-reported outcome measures after lateral closing-wedge HTO and determine the time to failure. Failure was defined as conversion to arthroplasty (total knee arthroplasty or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty) or revision HTO. RESULTS: At 20 years, HTO survival was determined in 95 patients, and 5 were lost to follow-up. The overall survivorship of HTO at 20 years was 44%. The significant factors that were associated with better survivorship were age <55 years, body mass index <30, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score >45. These factors were used to define the favorable candidates. In the favorable candidates, survivorship was 100% at 5 years, after which there was a gradual decline to 62% survival at 20 years. Of those with HTO survival, 32 of 33 (97%) reported satisfaction with surgery, with a mean Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain score of 91 and Activities of Daily Living score of 97. CONCLUSION: HTO is a successful surgical option to treat medial compartment osteoarthritis and prevent the need for arthroplasty in young patients. The most suitable candidates for HTO are aged <55 years, are not obese, and have not progressed to severe symptomatic disability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".